PAUL AND THE RHETORIC OF REVERSAL: KERYGMATIC ...

Yeo’s objection certainly draws attention to failings within Mitchell’s project. As Yeo
points out, Mitchell’s explanation of chapter 15 – and verse 58 as the culminatory finale –
seems unacceptibly forced, requiring one to read between the lines in order to discern
what is allegedly a climactic conclusion to a consistent argument for congregational
concord. 49 This calls into question Mitchell’s suggestion and interpretation of 1:10 as the
governing thesis statement of a “deliberative” structure, but does not adequately dispense
with the literary unity of 1 Corinthians itself.
Witherington rightly sees that an analysis of the rhetoric of the Pharisee Paul (who, it
should be noted, co-sent 1 Corinthians with Sosthenes – the synagogue leader?) must be
open to broader possibilities:
[T]he primary and first task is to ask the appropriate historical questions about
the NT text and what its ancient authors had in mind. When that is the prime
mandate then only analysis on the basis of Greco-Roman or ancient Jewish
rhetoric is appropriate. 50
49 Mitchell writes, “[T]he whole argument in 15:1-57 serves to culminate Paul’s appeal
throughout 1 Corinthians, so 15:58 need only draw the connections implicit in that
extensive argument”. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric, 291. Mitchell’s argument is that in
chapter 15 Paul brings to culmination an extended appeal that the Corinthians see
congregational unity as being advantageous, and thus worthy of their dedicated pursuit.
Verse 58 is then interpreted along these lines: “Always give yourselves fully to the work
of the Lord [that is, to the pursuit of unity], because you know that your labour in the Lord
is not in vain [that is, it is to your advantage]”. In Mitchell’s own words, “The conclusion
is short and to the point, and amounts to a restatement of the central argument of the letter:
seek the upbuilding of the church in concord, even when it entails sacrificing what appears
to be to your present advantage, because this is the appropriate Christian behaviour of love
(τὸ ἔργον τοῦ κυρίου) which will lead to eschatological advantage (οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν
κυρίῳ)” (290). That chapter 15 forms the climactic proof of an argument against
factionalism, however, is not at all apparent in the text. Gordon Fee rightly notes that
“nothing in Paul’s response suggests that the Corinthians are divided among themselves
on this matter. As before, the issue seems to be between some of them – who have
influenced the whole – and the apostle Paul”. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians (NICNT; 2 nd rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), 713-14. This
is in broad agreement with John Chrysostom’s view: “For although they were arguing
with one another in other matters, in this matter they all conspired, as with one mouth,
insisting that there is no resurrection”. Homily 39 on 1 Corinthians; PG 61.339. For my
reading of 15:58, see chapter 5, footnote 68.
50 Ben Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of
Persuasion in and of the New Testament (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009), 6-7;
emphasis mine.
84